Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HUMBER CONSERVANCY BILL

Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

CANTERBURY EXTENSION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

WORCESTER CORPORATION BILL AIRDRIE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH(ROYAL (DICK) VETERINARY COLLEGE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Mr. Speaker: I have a short announcement to make to the House:
There is no rule or custom which restrains the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same subject and containing similar provisions. But if a decision of the House has already been taken on one such bill, for example, if the bill has been given…a second reading, the other is not proceeded with if it contains substantially the same provisions…
That can be found in Erskine May, page 499, paragraph 5.
This rule applies to the National Insurance (Amendment) Bill which is on the Order Paper today for Second Reading. The subject matter of every provision in this Bill is dealt with in the National Insurance Bill which was read a Second time on 26th April, and is to be taken in Committee on Wednesday next. I therefore rule that this Bill cannot be proceeded with today, and I make this known to the House at the beginning of today's proceedings for the convenience of hon. Members.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

11.6 a.m.

Mrs. Castle: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
It is a matter of great satisfaction that the House should have welcomed this Bill in all its preceding stages so unequivocally and I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading unanimously this morning. I think that during the various stages of the Bill hon. Members have appreciated that although it may seem a small Measure, dealing with a limited point, it really is an important Bill for two reasons.
First, by passing this Bill the House will be taking another step towards securing true equality before the law. A cynic has said that all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. It is because this was true as between men and women in the last century, and particularly in the field of prostitution, that that great woman, Josephine Butler, started her campaign to remove the most blatant of the injustices from our law. She succeeded in securing the repeal of the iniquitous contagious diseases Acts of 1864–1869. This was a tremendous step forward, but it still left many imperfections in our law, some of which remain today. If Josephine Butler were still alive, I am sure that she would be in the vanguard of the agitation to secure the amendment of the law which this Bill advocates. I am sure that she is watching our proceedings today with great pleasure.
The second reason why the Bill is important is because it will enable this country to keep its high place of leadership among the countries of the world in pressing for the suppression of the traffic in women and girls. Although our country has always most strongly supported international action in this field, the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, which this Bill seeks to modify, were a blot on our legislation which prevented us from taking our full part in international action to deal with this problem.
It prevented us, for example, from ratifying the 1933 International Convention for the Suppression of Traffic in Women, and it would have prevented us from ratifying the most recent convention of the United Nations which was adopted at the General Assembly in 1949. As it happened, that Convention was passed with such imperfections from our point of view that we were not able to vote for it. But I am particularly gratified that, even though we are not bound by that Convention, we are, nevertheless, taking steps in this Bill to bring our law into line with its provisions, which, once again, shows that this country is one which takes these international arrangements very seriously, and which always plays its part in conforming to high standards of international opinion on any subject.
I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the sympathetic way in which they have received the Bill, and I ask the House unanimously to give it its Third Reading this morning.

11.11 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I wish to support, in a few words, what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) has said. This Bill extends the Act of 1885 in two important respects It extends to prostitutes and women of known immoral character the protection which the Act of 1885 gave in Sections 2 and 3 to ordinary women against procuration while under the age of 21, and against procuration by false pretences at any time at all. It extends to all women whose normal place of abode is a brothel the protection accorded to other women against procuration to enter a brothel.
As my hon. Friend pointed out on Second Reading, the Bill recognises that it is wrong to withhold from a woman the protection of the law merely because of her lack of moral character. That is a point of principle. Again, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the Bill strikes a procureur at the point where his exploitation is likely in modern conditions, that

is to say, among the professionals and semi-professionals. That is a practical point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East, and I were delegates together in 1949 at Lake Success, and, although I was not on the committee, I happened to be present when the Social Committee discussed this subject. I well remember that although my hon. Friend found it easy to defend most of the aspects of our law in this matter, she was distressed at having to defend before 58 other nations aspects which seemed undesirable to her. These defects in the Act of 1885 greatly impressed my hon. Friend, and, as we adjourned, I heard her tell her American neighbour, Mrs. Roosevelt, that she would try to see that the law was changed on this subject. Those were very brave words, but it so happens that there is the probability that they may prove to be right. By a coincidence, it falls to me to speak for the Government today and to welcome this Bill. In so doing, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the able and, if I may say so, persistent way in which she has carried it through.

11.14 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I do not think we should allow this occasion to pass without registering the fact that this is the first Bill introduced under the Ten Minutes' Rule that has received a Third Reading. Therefore, I think, it proves to the House how valuable is that rule, and how glad the House should be at its reintroduction.
I, also, would like to congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the Measure with the unanimous approval of the House since, in my opinion—and I think it is an opinion that is is generally held—it attacks the root of the evil instead of its unfortunate victims, who are merely the channel by which evil men and women in this country have hitherto sought to gain a livelihood. It attacks the pimps and procureurs, and helps to safeguard their dupes. For that reason alone, I think the Bill has been worth the attention given to it by the hon. Lady, and I congratulate her on her achievement.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — COMMON INFORMERS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(ABOLITION OF CERTAIN COMMON INFORMER ACTIONS.)

11.16 a.m.

Mr. Lionel Heald: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out line 5, and to insert:
(5) Subsection (1) of this section shall bind the Crown so as to prevent the Crown from bringing proceedings as a common informer and accordingly, the reference to a common informer in the proviso to that subsection shall include a reference to the Crown acting as a common informer.
This is a clarifying Amendment directed to subsection (5) which states, very briefly:
This section shall bind the Crown.
It has been thought proper slightly to extend that language to explain just what it means. The language now used is slightly more complicated, but has precisely the same effect. It merely says that
this section shall bind the Crown so as to prevent the Crown from bringing proceedings as a common informer and, accordingly, the reference to a common informer in the proviso to that subsection shall include a reference to the Crown acting as a common informer.
I think it is clear that that in no way alters the intention of the Clause, but merely clarifies the position.

Mr. Hollis: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule.—(ACTS PROVIDING FOR COMMON INFORMER ACTIONS.)

Mr. Heald: I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, at the end, to insert:

6. Geo. 4. c. 50
The Juries Act, 1825.
Section forty-six

This is a simple Amendment. It merely adds to this Schedule of 46 Acts, a reference to a 47th Act of Parliament, the Juries Act, 1825, which had been overlooked. This Act contains the ordinary common informer provision, and, therefore, should be included in the table of Acts. We hope that the table is now complete, or may reasonably be assumed to be complete, but no guarantee can be given, I am afraid, that others may not be discovered later.

Mr. Hollis: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

11.18 a.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Heald.]—[King's Consent on behalf of the Crown signified.]

Mr. Heald: There is very little I wish to say at this stage, except on one or two points. The object of the Bill is, of course, to abolish a form of legal procedure which is unnecessary and obsolete, but which has, nevertheless, been productive in recent years of a very mean form of blackmail. The Bill, as amended, carries out this object in the simplest possible way. All I wish to do, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, is to express my very sincere thanks to all those who have so kindly assisted me in this matter. I wish, particularly, to mention the officials and officers of the House conected with it who have been so very helpful.
I am bound to say that had I realised, when I originally conceived the idea of abolishing the common informer procedure, that I should have to provide for the amendment of no fewer than 47 Acts of Parliament, and that I should have to obtain the King's Assent to be bound by a Private Member's Bill—it took me at any rate some little time to find out how it was done, and indeed I learned today for the first time how it was done—and that in addition, it would be necessary to make provisions for the Northern Ireland Parliament to take power to legislate, I might have been deterred. But, with the wise guidance and kind help of the officials of the House and of the Parliamentary draftsmen, I have been able to surmount these troubles.
Even so, I could not have done that without the co-operation of His Majesty's Government. In addition to thanking the Ministers personally concerned for the assistance they gave me, I would also like to say that my association with this Bill has brought me into contact with a number of hon. Members opposite with whom I have discussed the matter. In so doing, I have been able to find, what so many before me have found, that it is possible to have friendly and interesting associations with those with whom, on other matters, one has strong divisions of opinion.
The only thing that remains for me to do is to stop talking, because time is pressing and the one thing I still desire to do is to get the Bill on to the Statute Book. The sooner it goes to another place and is dealt with the better, because if the political prophets are right it might be truthfully said that the end of this Parliament is nigh.

11.21 a.m.

Mr. Hollis: I hope it will not be considered presumptuous of me if I say that I speak for all hon. and right hon. Members in this House, certainly for large numbers, in expressing my congratulations to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald). This common informer legislation was a type of legislation which has been on the Statute Book for many centuries and of which we are not proud, and it was the kind of legislation that it is very difficult for Parliament to find time to amend.
As my hon. and learned Friend has indicated, to deal with this kind of thing in the way everyone would like to deal with it, takes an enormous amount of time and patience, which he has ungrudgingly given and shown. There has been no kind of opposition in any quarter to what he has suggested and I am sure that every quarter of the House would wish to congratulate him.

11.22 a.m.

Mr. Hoy: It is only right that a Member from this side of the House should extend our congratulations to the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald) who has piloted this Bill through the House. It is quite true that he could give no guarantee about the Acts which had to be referred to in promoting the Bill: indeed, one has only to look at the Schedule and all the references it contains, to accept the word of the hon. and learned Gentleman. This is a very large step forward in this type of legislation. The contents of the Bill have been approved by both sides of the House, and from this side I should like to congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the considerable success he has achieved in having brought the Bill to this stage.

11.23 a.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I should like to take this

opportunity of adding my word of congratulation to the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald) for the extremely useful work he has done in piloting this Bill through the House. It removes a feature which has for long attracted the unfavourable notice of all shades of opinion. No doubt the common informer procedure had its use in times gone by, but I think it is the common accord of all persons who have thought of this matter, that it has long outlived any useful purpose it may ever have served.
The Bill might have raised a number of controversial matters which, however, do not come strictly within its scope. It has the limited objective of removing the particular type of procedure with which it is immediately concerned. During our discussions reference has been made to the impact of the Bill on, for example, the Sunday Observance Act and it might be useful if I say a few words on this point.
The question of the Sunday Observance Act has always been regarded as a matter primarily—I say primarily—of local concern. I believe that when the Bill, as I hope, reaches the Statute Book the position will, roughly speaking, be as follows with regard to that Act. Prosecutions under the Sunday Observance Act in the past have not been undertaken generally by the police and it is not thought that the change of procedure brought about by the Bill will alter the position in this respect. It is, of course, for the police officer to decide in any particular case whether or not we should institute criminal proceedings in respect of a suspected breach of the criminal law, and this is not a matter on which the Government either could or should issue instructions to the police. It is perhaps reasonable to assume, however, that chief officers of police generally will take the view that proceedings in these cases can best be brought by private persons rather than by the police.
I thought it might be useful if I just gave that general indication of the view we have formed, but, as I have said, it is not a topic which is strictly germane to or immediately involved in the provisions of this Bill. As the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey has reminded the House on more than one occasion, the provisions of the Bill are of a much more limited scope and a


scope which I think everybody will feel has an extremely useful objective.
In conclusion, by way of farewell to the Bill at this stage, I would like to say to the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey that I am grateful for the remarks he has made about such co-operation as it has been possible to afford to him in his labours. Also, having had some experience of the tremendous work and research which are involved when one begins to look backward over the statutes which still form part of our legislative system, I think he deserves to be congratulated and complimented on the assiduity he has shown in compiling the Bill that we now see before us. I very willingly add my word of congratulation to the hon. and learned Gentleman and hope that the House, of common accord, will give the Bill its Third Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PET ANIMALS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 4.—(INSPECTION OF PET SHOPS.)

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, after "inspect," to insert:
(subject to compliance with such precautions as the authority may specify to prevent the spread among animals of infectious diseases).
At the Wellcome Research Station at Frant no visitor is allowed in the same building as the ferrets. He can only look through a glass window. The dogs have spacious grass runs surrounded by two wire fences so that contact with a visitor is impossible. It is considered vital that no infection should get near these animals. Such conditions are normally not possible elsewhere, but Ministry of Agriculture and county agricultural executive officials, when visiting farms, have to take most stringent precautions to prevent the spreading of fowl pest and contagious diseases of pigs and cattle. They wear rubber boots and bring their own disinfectant and use it before entering or leaving the premises.
11.30 a.m.
It is only right that authorised persons inspecting pet shops or similar establishments

should be made to take every precaution against the spread of the many diseases from which pet animals and birds may suffer. Certain types of pet shops, usually grossly overcrowded, are known to be hotbeds of disease. There should by all means be inspection and, if need be, closing of establishments of this kind, but we must prevent the spread of infection to other and more reputable establishments.
I hope that the authorities will consult with the Royal Veterinary College and the Ministry of Agriculture for advice on the framing of suitable regulations, otherwise there may well arise a large number of civil actions for losses of animals and birds caused by the spread of disease which has been carried by inspectors on their lawful occasions.

Mr. Russell: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Sir J. Lucas: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, at the end, to insert:
(b) where a person carries on a business of selling animals as pets in conjunction with a business of breeding pedigree animals, and the local authority are satisfied that the animals so sold by him (in so far as they are not pedigree animals bred by him) are animals which were acquired by him with a view to being used, if suitable, for breeding or show purposes but have subsequently been found by him not to be suitable or required for such use, the local authority may if they think fit direct that the said person shall not be deemed to keep a pet shop by reason only of his carrying on the first-mentioned business.
I am not responsible for the wording of the Amendment; it was suggested that the wording I had originally proposed was too elastic. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that a genuine breeder, who occasionally buys outside stock with the idea of a change of blood or for other purposes—who perhaps buys a litter of puppies, keeps them for a while, picks out the best to keep for himself and sells the rest—is not liable to be licensed as a pet shop, which would appear to be the case if the Amendment were not inserted in the Clause. I do not think that anyone objects to the principle underlying the Amendment, but there is an old West Country saying, "There is reason in roasting eggs."
It would appear that the right principle to adopt would be to ask: What is the object of the person conducting the business? If its main purpose is the buying and selling of pet animals or birds, quite obviously it is a pet shop. But if it is a genuine breeding establishment, the majority of which do not make any money, and are conducted purely as a hobby, it comes within a different category. Apart from breeding, these establishments normally buy young stock purely for exhibition purposes and sell later if it is not of a sufficiently high standard. Establishments of this kind should not be included within the definition of pet shops.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

11.35 a.m.

Mr. Russell: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
As the Bill has been amended rather considerably in Standing Committee, it is perhaps fitting that I should say a few words about the changes which have been made. I make it clear at the outset that most of the Amendments which have been made are due to the Home Office, and I thank the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary for all their help in this direction. It was thought by some hon. Members that the Under-Secretary of State was perhaps a little lukewarm towards the Bill during the Second Reading debate. He is now, however, very enthusiastic, has given every possible help since the Second Reading, and is as anxious as everybody else for it to become law. I am grateful for the help and guidance I have had from him and his advisers in drafting the Amendments which have been made in Standing Committee and which, I think, have improved the Bill considerably.
The first big change affects Clause 1. The Schedule which was included in the Bill as it was originally drawn has been removed, most of its points now being included in Clause 1 (3), in the guidance which is given to local authorities. Discretion is left to local authorities to decide upon the conditions which are suitable for individual pet shops in their

area. In other words, a local authority will be able to lay down conditions which may be applicable to one pet shop only and not to another. They are given greater elasticity in averting the evil which we are all anxious to avoid. The failure to comply with any conditions laid down by a local authority becomes a punishable offence.
Clauses 2 and 3 are new Clauses, the former providing that no sale of pets shall take place in streets or public places. This was originally part of the Schedule. Clause 3 prohibits the selling of pet animals of all kinds to children under the age of 12 years and makes it an offence to do so. Scotland has been included in the Bill, largely due to the help of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), who is as pleased as I am that this inclusion has been made. I think that the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who raised this matter on Second Reading, will be equally pleased.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Do all the provisions of the Bill now extend to Scotland?

Mr. Russell: I think I am right in saying that they do. The exclusion of Scotland from the Bill would have led to legal complications.
Among the officials whom local authorities may authorise to inspect pet shops, constables and inspectors of the R.S.P.C.A. have now been excluded. We are all agreed that the exclusion of constables is a sensible arrangement, because, of all a council's officials—I say this with no disrespect whatever—they are, perhaps, the least suitable because they have not been trained in any way in animal welfare. I am sorry, however, that R.S.P.C.A. inspectors have been excluded. I appreciate the difficulty which necessitated this change and I realise the precedent which their inclusion might have created. I accept the position, albeit with a certain reluctance. We would all prefer the Bill to become law without R.S.P.C.A. inspectors being eligible for authorisation, rather than that the Bill should not become law at all.
Another valuable improvement in this connection is that inspection will now include not only premises, but anything inside them—namely, kennels, cages and anything else in which animals may be


kept. The definition of the word "animal" has been simplified to mean "any description of vertebrate." This change will meet the criticisms which were made on Second Reading that amphibians might not have been included in the original definition. The definition of a local authority has been amended, as I undertook to do during the Second Reading, by the deletion of county councils and the substitution of county boroughs, county district councils and, I think, the councils of burghs in Scotland.
The date of operation of the Bill has been deferred from 1st January, 1952, to 1st April, 1952. There is no significance in the new date; it merely happened to be convenient. It was thought that if the Bill, as we hope, becomes law before the end of the summer, the earlier date would not give sufficient time to local authorities to carry out all their inspections and to issue all the requisite conditions and regulations. The new date of 1st April will give them a little more time. I hope that the Bill will be given a Third Reading unanimously like its two predecessors today, and that it will be speeded along to another place so that it can become law within a month or so.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I should like to support the plea of the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) that the Bill should be speeded on its way to another place. It was suggested that because of the visit of His Majesty to the South Bank Exhibition this morning it perhaps would be a good thing if the House did not meet today. I did not agree with that point of view myself because I held strongly that there could not be a better way of celebrating the Festival of Britain than by the House devoting today to the consideration of legislation brought forward by Private Members. It is a vindication of the democracy of which we are so proud in this country.
Indeed, I do not think we could have had a happier selection of Bills than those which have appeared on the Order Paper today. We began with the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle)—a Bill which reminded us that however mean or however unrespectable a citizen of this country may be, she is nevertheless entitled to the full protection of the law.

Then we had the Bill moved by the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald) which reminded visitors from abroad that the citizens of this country do not like busybodies interfering in their private affairs, whatever the motives for which it is done. It is good that this morning we should determine to put an end to the rights of private individuals to find loopholes in the law and to exploit them to their own material advantage.
Now we come to what is perhaps the most typically British of all the Measures before us today—the Animals Bill. It will precede a Bill to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), which reminds us that the British do not like excessive excitement of any kind, especially since the days when the protagonist of fireworks, Guy Fawkes, sought to elevate the proceedings of this House.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think we can discuss all the other Bills now. This is the Third Reading of one Bill.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask whether Guy Fawkes has ever been in order in this House?

Mr. Speaker: I really cannot answer that; I do not know. I should say he was out of order.

Mr. Greenwood: I am grateful for your guidance on that point, Mr. Speaker, and I will turn now with considerable pleasure to the Measure before us this morning. This Bill is remarkable for the fact that it reminds visitors to this country that in the middle of all our difficulties we are prepared to devote time and energy to considering a matter which in many parts of the world would be regarded as of little importance but which to many of us is of great importance.
This Bill is the first major piece of animal legislation since the Animal Protection Act was introduced in 1911 and it covers a wide range of domestic animals. Even when it becomes law there will still be gaps in our animal legislation, and I should like once again to urge upon the Under-Secretary of State the desirability of consolidating the law relating to the protection of animals at a very early date. It is a matter to which the Home Office should be devoting attention and I hope that in the next Session of Parliament the Home Secre-


tary may be in a position to introduce such legislation.
Whatever gaps may still remain, I think we should all be grateful to the hon. Member for Wembley, South for the Measure before us this morning. I had the privilege of joining him in a number of discussions and negotiations which have taken place and I should like to say how much I have admired his thoroughness, his patience, and his transparently conscientious desire to do what was right but not to get lost in a sea of details or a sea of legalities, but rather to do what he believed to be in the interests of strengthening the Measure he had introduced.
I join with the hon. Member for Wembley, South in thanking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I am afraid that on the occasion of the Second Reading my hon. Friend was the object of some unkind words by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), who I am sorry to see is not in his place this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to the Home Office as being the great refrigerator of all warm-hearted causes, but in the discussions we have had my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has not played the role of iceman in this great refrigerator. If there are reindeers roaming about the icy corridors of the Home Office, I am sure that at any rate they will get a friendly pat and an occasional lump of sugar from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
Our thanks are due not only to him but also to his officials and to the Parliamentary draftsmen who helped us so much with this Measure. May I say, speaking personally, that it was a delightful experience to come across Parliamentary draftsmen who really understood the material with which we were dealing and who obviously had a genuine feeling for tortoises and other animals brought within the scope of the Measure. Indeed, I think they have improved the Bill almost beyond recognition.
I am bound to confess that the Bill as it was introduced was not very well worded. Indeed, curiously enough it would have meant, if the Bill had been passed in its original form, that it would

have been illegal to sell fish in pet shops, because the definition of an animal in the original Bill included "any bird, beast, or reptile or fish." It was provided under Regulation 7 that no animal should be sold unweaned and as, of course, fish are not mammals and therefore cannot be weaned, it would automatically have followed from the passing of the Bill in its original form that it would have been impossible to sell fish because they had not been weaned.
As a result of the efforts of the Parliamentary draftsmen and of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, a number of improvements of that kind have been introduced. I know that the hon. and gallant Member for East Grin-stead (Colonel Clarke), for example, will be delighted to know that as a result of the efforts of the Parliamentary draftsmen it has been possible to give the axolotl that statutory recognition which has already been given to the golden hamster and the guinea pig.
The hon. Member for Wembley, South, spoke of a number of changes which have been made, and perhaps I may mention three which I regard as being of the greatest importance. These changes were made in the Standing Committee. In the first place, I am glad we have got rid of the regulations and incorporated in the body of the Bill those which were regarded as being the most important.
It is a good thing, too, that we have introduced Clause 3 into the Bill, making it illegal to sell an animal as a pet to a child under the age of 12. That, of course, does not seek to deprive children under 12 of the opportunity of having pets. Indeed, I think all hon. Members who have been associated with this Measure would like to encourage the keeping of pets by all children, regardless of their age, provided they were doing so under the supervision of older people and, most of all, with the approval of older people. This Clause makes it illegal to sell pets to children under 12 unless they have the approval of their parents. If a child goes to a pet shop with his parents and it is quite clear that he has the approval of his parents, then there will be nothing in the Bill to stop him having a pet.
Another change which I regard as of very great importance is that which has


been made in strengthening the inspection powers of local authorities. The hon. Member for Wembley, South, referred to one particularly important change—that it is now possible not only to inspect the pet shops but also to inspect the "animals thereon and anything therein," which means that it will be left to the local authority to decide whether adequate space is being given to the animals in their cages and whether adequate space is being given between the cages themselves. At the same time, while we have sought to strengthen the powers of local authorities, we have added further protection for private householders so that it will be less easy under the amended Bill than it was under the Bill as originally drafted for the inspection of private houses to take place.
Like the hon. Member for Wembley, South, I regret the fact that in Standing Committee we found it necessary to drop the R.S.P.C.A. inspectors from the Bill. I think all hon. Members in the Committee understood the difficulty in which the Home Office found itself, especially on the general principle of allowing inspectors of voluntary organisations to have powers of inspection. Although I regret the dropping of the R.S.P.C.A. inspectors, I agree with the hon. Member for Wembley, South, that it was better to have the Bill without the inspectors than to lose the Bill including the inspectors. All of us who were on the Standing Committee agreed with the desirability of dropping the powers of inspection granted in the Bill to constables.
The third change which I believe has improved the Bill enormously is the strengthening of the licensing powers of local authorities. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did move an Amendment extending to the county districts some of the powers which, in the original Bill, were reserved to the county councils. In Clause 1 now we have put a list of the points which a local authority should take into consideration in granting a licence, and it was due to the kindly initiative of the Home Office that we did include in Clause 1 (3, b) provision that animals should be adequately supplied with suitable food and drink. That was a point which, I think perhaps quite inexcusably, we all of us failed to notice when the Bill was originally introduced;

and as further evidence of the warmhearted interest of the Home Office I think it is fair to point out that the improvement was made at its suggestion.
I think that, perhaps, the most important part of the Clause is that where we say that the local authorities should in particular have regard to the need for considering various requirements
but without prejudice to their discretion to withhold a licence on other grounds.
I hope that when a local authority is considering whether to grant an application for a licence to keep a pet shop they will take into consideration for example the applicant's previous record and make quite sure that he has the necessary knowledge and that he has no convictions for cruelty against him.
Of course, in the operation of this Measure when it becomes an Act, as I hope and trust it will, a lot will depend on the keenness and thoroughness with which local authorities interpret and apply the powers which we are giving to them. It would obviously be most unsuitable in a Measure of this kind to be too detailed and too niggling about considerations and suggestions which we give to the local authorities, but I hope that with that tact for which it is so well known the Home Office, when this Measure becomes an Act, will give the local authorities guidance as to the way in which they in their wisdom shall apply and interpret the powers which we are giving them.

11.53 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Even at the risk of giving an undue and false sense of complacency to the Government in regard to their popularity, I should like to join with my hon. Friends on both sides of the House in thanking the Government for their assistance with this Bill. I, of course, am particularly happy that the Bill has been made to extend to Scotland. We had grave doubts whether this was technically possible at first, but when I approached the Lord Advocate I found him very receptive; indeed, he went so far as to assist in drafting the necessary Amendments to make the Bill so applicable. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was also in her place to facilitate the passage of the Bill in Committee.
In honesty and fairness I would say that the Bill has been accorded a widespread welcome from all sections of the community in Scotland. The distinguished animal protection societies, of which there are four in Scotland, are all also extremely delighted with the passage of the Bill. While I share the disappointment that those great societies, including the R.S.P.C.A., are not permitted to play a more prominent part in the administration of the Measure, I can see the difficulties that were likely to have arisen if they had been so included.
The Bill is a great step—a very considerable step—forward. As I see it, animals are broadly divided into two groups in their relationship with man. One group consists of animals for our food; and the other of animals for our pleasure. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), who is sitting besides his distinguished father—his more distinguished father: age must have its recognition—said that the Bill must be the major animals' protection Bill launched since the Animals Protection Act of 1912. That is, of course, not true. The Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, was a far more substantial Act in that it removed the terror of the pole axe and the knife from animals to be slaughtered, and it affected 16 million animals a year.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I apologise if I exaggerated the importance of this Measure, and, perhaps, I may take this opportunity of saying that I am sorry that I did not refer to the two Slaughter of Animals Acts for which the hon. and gallant Member himself was responsible.

Sir T. Moore: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kindly reference. In those Acts, the English and the Scottish, we legislated for the humane treatment—in their death, anyhow—of animals for our food; but we had hitherto, until the introduction of this Bill, neglected making arrangements for the care of animals for our pleasure. In this Bill we legislate for animals that are sources of pleasure to ourselves and our families including our children, and by this Bill, I believe, we give the greatest protection possible within the law—because, of course, the real protection lies with the individuals who own animals. We can legislate for the handing over of the animals in a healthy, happy, clean,

and well fed condition to the owner; but the owner then assumes the responsibility for bird, chick, canary, rabbit—whatever it may be.
I do hope that in the administration of this Measure, education will be assumed to be one of the most prominent requirements of the Measure so as to ensure that children—and grown-ups, too—will take care, and have the knowledge to take care, of the animals in their possession. I hope that the beneficial provisions of the Bill will be fully implemented, so that these animals live happy lives. I need scarcely say that I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Bill.

11.58 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think this is the one occasion in the history of the House that I have been able to endorse every word—indeed, every comma and every semicolon—that has come from the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) who is my neighbour in that county. I am sure the citizens of Ayrshire will be very glad to know that at least two members of Parliament have resisted the attraction of the South Bank of the Thames this day in order to support this Bill. I am not so sure whether, if Ascot had been on this day, the hon. and gallant Member would have been able to resist the attraction.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that animals were broadly divided into two groups. Well, there may be some doubt about that assertion. I was once told that the king of animals was the lion. The bear was afraid of the lion, but the wolf was afraid of the bear, and the dog was afraid of the wolf, and the cat was afraid of the dog, and the mouse was afraid of the cat—and my wife is afraid of the mouse, and I am afraid of my wife. So the circle is complete.
This House has performed a very useful piece of legislation, and in that respect I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and with those of other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. I am not quite sure about one thing, and, perhaps, the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), who introduced the Bill, will be able to enlighten me on the point, and that is in Clause 5. It lays down penalties—a fine of £25 or a term of imprisonment for three months, or both. I am


glad that Scotland has been included in the Bill because one of the cases which will come under the Bill is a rather big store in Argyle Street, Glasgow. I wish to know who has to be prosecuted, the person who sells the pets, or, if the shop is owned by a company, the managing director? Who is to be liable to fine or imprisonments?
This large store has a pets department and the store is owned by the firm of Lewis. Recently I was discussing the case of a small pet dog which was bought in Lewis's shop in Glasgow. It was covered with lice and was in a very bad condition when bought. It was bought under conditions of which hon. Members who have promoted this Bill would not approve. What is to happen if that store still maintains its pets department and a prosecution is instituted? Who is to be prosecuted? Is it to be the unfortunate person who looks after the pets, or the managing director of the firm? I hope it will be the managing director and I hope that this three months will be imposed previous to the next General Election, because the managing director happens to be Lord Woolton.
I am quite sure Lord Woolton knows nothing about this and I am quite sure he will welcome this Measure. I should be glad to know exactly who is to be prosecuted under this provision. I do not believe there will be many prosecutions necessary because I believe that public opinion, with the support of all hon. Members of this House, has been so concentrated on this particular evil that it will be very difficult for the sort of cruelty that has gone on in the past to be continued when this Measure is on the Statute Book.
I am glad to know that tortoises are included. Tortoises are slow; I know, I live among them. I am sure that the National Union of Tortoises will be glad to know that its kindred spirit the National Union of Legislators is moving a little faster than the tortoises' organisation. I welcome the Bill and I know it will become another Act which will help to make cruelty to animals in this country very difficult and. I hope, impossible.

12.4 p.m.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: I am glad to say that the Kennel Club welcomes this Bill, as I understand do

all reputable pet shops. I hope now that subsection (1) of Clause 1 has been widened in giving a local authority power to withhold a licence
(but without prejudice to their discretion to withhold a licence on other grounds),
that those "other grounds" will be held to include dishonesty. There are people known to be crooks who have been convicted a number of times and who are on the Kennel Club black list who take part in this trade. If a man on the black list sells a dog, it cannot be registered, nor can its progeny, for the pedigrees are probably false. If a man is licensed it is like giving a licence to a publican—it is more or less a guarantee of character. I hope that local authorities will use their discretion in this matter and take character into account.
I congratulate the sponsors of the Bill, although I am sorry that one suggestion I made has not been adopted. That was that the provision of feeding charts should be compulsory when selling young animals. I hope that the R.S.P.C.A. will take the hint, and provide feeding charts, on payment if necessary. That would save the breeder and the pet shop owner a great deal of trouble. Very few private breeders would ever object to allowing someone to come and look at their kennels to see that they are properly kept. Personally, I would welcome that, but I think the vast majority would strongly resent their premises being called a "pet shop" and that is why I moved my second Amendment during the Report Stage.

12.6 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: I wish to support the Bill and to say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that this occasion is certainly unique, because, not only did he find himself in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), but even in agreement with a Bill supported by the Government. Never did we in our wildest expectations——

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am one of the pet animals.

Mr. Hoy: —expect to find a South Ayrshire in a Government pet shop. I was a little surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) should have overlooked the occasion when the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr introduced his Bill to deal


with the humane slaughter of animals. He should have remembered that great occasion because the hon. and gallant Member brought a humane killer into the House and demonstrated how it would work, even holding it to his forehead. The fact that he is here today is, of course, a tribute to his bad marksmanship.

Sir T. Moore: A former popular Member of this House, the late Mr. Jack Jones, expressed his disappointment that I missed.

Mr. Hoy: I have read of the occasion and I attempted to recall the incident, which I am certain the hon. and gallant Member remembers with pleasure. We in Scotland are glad that the provisions of the Bill have been extended to our country. It was kind of the hon. and gallant Member to refer to the assistance given by the Lord Advocate and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in drafting Amendments. We have not in it what has been so violently objected to by the hon. and gallant Member in other Bills, a Scottish Application Clause. We are grateful to have these benefits extended to us and I am certain they will work well in Scotland.
It is true that there were some exceedingly bad pet shops where animals suffered when suffering could have been avoided, but there was also a very large number of good pet shops. The fact that we are getting rid of bad pet shops by this Measure is something which will be welcomed by every hon. Member.

12.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): It must seem strange to many foreigners when there is war in the East and threats of war in the West that we should find time to debate this matter of the care of animals, not only today but some weeks ago and last week in Committee. Our care for animals is part of our national characteristic and it would be false if we in this House did not in this way reflect the character of the people we represent.
This is now a very much better Bill than it was when we considered it on Second Reading. My hon. Friend has mentioned the fact that on the Second Reading the Bill, as it then left us, would have forbidden the sale of fish before

they had been weaned. As one who has kept goldfish for a number of years, I thought that I had been singularly unobservant, but it was realised during the debate that this had no deep significance and was merely a drafting error. Matters of detail like this have now been put right.
There was one point of principle in particular on which it was impossible for the Committee at first to agree, and it was a matter on which everyone was against me. I refer to the question of the deletion of the reference to an inspector of the R.S.P.C.A., which raised a very important point of principle. I am sorry that I had to disturb the harmony of the Committee by sticking out on that matter, but it was a matter of the greatest importance. We considered that no private society should have powers given to it in this way by Parliament. However, the Committee were good enough to agree that this reference should be deleted, and I think that we can generally all share the credit for the transformation scene in Committee. When I say that we can all share the credit, that is true, but the greater part must, of course, go the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood).
On the Second Reading, in connection with the inclusion of Scotland, it was said by an hon. Member on this side of the House that tens of thousands of Scotsmen were going to swarm across the Border and invade the constituency of the hon. Member for Wembley, South, and the direct result of that would be the inclusion of Scotland in the Bill. The fact is that today Scotland is included in the Bill.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should like a reassurance on this point. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that in the definition of pet animals "the Stone" is not included?

Mr. de Freitas: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will leave no stone unturned and no avenue unexplored. Anything which gives my hon. Friend pleasure gives us all pleasure today, because he is with us for once, and perhaps, I should say, for the first time. Scotland is in the Bill, and it is quite a different Bill from that which I was rather lukewarm about


on Second Reading. I can say today on behalf of His Majesty's Government how much we like this Bill. It is now a real charter of pet shops, and I hope that when the Bill reaches the Statute Book all reputable and responsible proprietors of pet shops will realise that they have nothing to fear from the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — FIREWORKS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(MARKING OF FIREWORKS.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no fireworks shall be consigned from the factory in which they were made unless each firework bears conspicuously the name of the occupier of the factory and the address of the factory.

(2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to—

(a) fireworks weighing less than one-eighth of an ounce each;
(b) fireworks of the kinds set out in the Schedule to this Act;
(c) fireworks of such other kinds as the Secretary of State may by regulations contained in a statutory instrument prescribe,

but no fireworks of the kinds set out in the foregoing paragraphs shall be consigned from the factory in which they were made unless every container in which they are consigned, including both containers in which they are to be sold to the public and containers for consignment in bulk, bears conspicuously the name of the occupier of the factory and the address of the factory.

(3) Nothing in either of the foregoing sub sections shall apply to fireworks consigned from a factory under a contract for the supply of those fireworks to the Crown.

(4) If the foregoing provisions of this section are contravened in respect of any fireworks, the occupier of the factory shall on summary conviction be liable to a penalty not exceeding—

(a) ten pounds; or
(b) an amount equal to twenty shillings for every pound of fireworks in respect of which he is convicted,

whichever is the greater:

Provided that the maximum fine in respect of fireworks consigned on any one day shall be one hundred pounds.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (9) of section forty of the principal Act (which as extended by an Order in Council under that Act, requires the import of fireworks to be under licence from the Secretary of State) the Secretary of State may,

for the purpose of ensuring that imported fireworks in the possession of the public can be traced back to the person who imported them, annex to an importation licence under that paragraph for the importation of fireworks requirements as to the marking, whether before or after importation, of fireworks or their containers similar to the requirements imposed by the foregoing subsection.

The reference in this subsection to the provisions of the principal Act shall include a reference to those provisions as they have effect in Northern Ireland.

(6) A person against whom proceedings are brought under this section shall, upon information duly laid by him and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have any person, to whose act or default he alleges that the contravention of the provisions in question was due, brought before the court in the proceedings, and, if after the contravention has been proved the original defendant proves that the contravention was due to the act or default of that other person, that other person may be convicted of the offence, and, if the original defendant further proves that he has used all due diligence to secure that the provisions in question were complied with, he shall be acquitted of the offence.

(7) Where a defendant seeks to avail himself of the provisions of the last foregoing subsection—

(a) the prosecution, as well as the person whom the defendant charges with the offence, shall have the right to cross-examine him, if he gives evidence, and any witness called by him in support of his pleas, and to call rebutting evidence;
(b) the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the payment of costs by any party to the proceedings to any other party thereto.

(8) In Scotland the two last foregoing sub sections shall not apply but—

(a) where a contravention of any provision of this section for which any person is liable to a fine under this section was due to an act or default of any other person, then, whether proceedings are or are not taken against the first mentioned person, that other person may be charged with and convicted of the contravention and shall be liable on conviction to the same punishment as might have been inflicted on the first mentioned person if he had been convicted of the contravention; and
(b) where a person who is charged with a contravention of any provision of this section proves to the satisfaction of the court that he has used all due diligence to secure that the provision in question was complied with and that the contravention was due to the act or default of some other person, the first mentioned person shall be acquitted of the contravention.—[Mr. Moyle.]

Brought up and read the First time.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I gave certain assurances to the Members of the Standing Committee that I would, in consultation with the Home Office, consider the representations that had been made on this matter. This Clause, and another which is to follow, are the result of the consideration that was given to the proposals, particularly those which came from the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Redmayne).
The Clause introduces a new feature in the Bill, because it makes it obligatory on the manufacturer and the importer that fireworks must be marked before they are consigned for sale. There are certain limits to the practicability of this proposal which are provided for in the Clause. It is proposed that fireworks not exceeding one-eighth of an ounce shall be excluded from the obligation of marking by the manufacturer, for the simple reason that below that limit the whole process is impracticable. If, for example, the limit were increased to half an ounce, it would bring in a batch of fireworks that could not be very easily marked. To meet that difficulty to some extent, it becomes obligatory to mark the container in cases where, for example, it would not be practicable to mark the firework itself.
In connection with imported fireworks, the provision is made that the licence which the importer must obtain carries with it the condition that the fireworks he imports must bear the appropriate marking. The whole purpose of the Clause is to be able to identify if necessary, the source of fireworks released to the market. With regard to the other fireworks which are excluded—I have already referred to the limit of one-eighth of an ounce below which fireworks are excluded from marking—a schedule will be provided. These are fireworks which are supplied to the Crown, and are excluded from the Bill.
There is a provision for certain penalties to be imposed upon manufacturers or others who may be proved to have offended against the provision of the Clause. I think that those of us who have given consideration to this Clause will at once agree that it makes a vast improvement in the Bill, and, in moving it, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe for having considered this matter and to

other of my colleagues who have been concerned with it.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: I beg to second the Motion.
I feel that I owe an apology to the House and to the hon. Member for Old-bury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) for not having taken a more active part in the early stages of the Bill. I put forward, in extenuation of my failure, the fact that outside this Chamber I have taken a reasonable share in the responsibility for getting this Bill to its present stage. In this new Clause there is a great deal more precision and an obvious clearing up of points raised on the Committee stage, and the results of the discussions since then have helped substantially to make the Bill a great deal better than it was.
As a doctor I have felt that no penalty, even boiling oil itself, is too much for those who have been making fireworks that explode prematurely and maim children, whose innocent fun has been turned suddenly to tragedy. I have been most enthusiastic about this Measure, and I have felt we should make clear and precise what we mean by the penalties we seek to impose. At the same time I believe that we should give to those who fall foul of what we propose should be the law, ample opportunity of clearing themselves if they are in a position to do so. In giving the Clause my warmest support, I feel sure I am speaking for everyone in this House.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: All of us must have been impressed by the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett) have advanced in support of this very substantial new Clause. It is interesting to notice that this new Clause is almost as large as the previous Measures we have been considering this morning. I appreciate the desire to provide for the marking of dangerous fireworks, but I should like an explanation of the subsection which excludes from the provision fireworks of the kind to be set out in the Schedule to the Bill.
On page 873 we find that three kinds of fireworks are specified, aluminium or magnesium torches, which are better


known to all of us as "sparklers," and jumping crackers. Could my hon. Friend tell us why he proposes to exclude jumping crackers. Could my hon. Friend tell us why he proposes to exclude jumping crackers from the Clause? All of us, who have had any experience of Guy Fawkes night at either of the two main universities of this country, know jumping crackers very well. Also, would my hon. Friend define more closely the term "Throw-downs." It is not very clear, and for our enlightenment perhaps he would give us a further explanation.

Mr. Sutcliffe: It is very desirable to safeguard the public against the sale of unmarked fireworks and this Clause will definitely strengthen the Bill. At the beginning of the Clause it says that no fireworks shall come from a factory unless each bears conspicuously the name of the occupier of the factory and the address of the factory, and I should like one or two more details on those points.
As everybody knows, a large firm by the name of Pain are makers of fireworks, and it is customary for them to have printed on all fireworks that go out from their works the words "Pain's Fireworks," and in addition there are usually printed the words "Jas. Pain and Sons, Ltd., London, England." However, there is not always room for the latter on some of the smaller fireworks, and they are sent out only with the words "Pain's Fireworks." I should like to know if "Pain's Fireworks" would be sufficient under the wording of this Clause. Undoubtedly theirs is a well-known name, and the fact that the full name and "London, England" is not on every firework is due only to the lack of space in certain cases.
Under subsection (2) of the Clause we are told
The foregoing subsection shall not apply to fireworks weighing less than one-eighth of an ounce each.
I understand that some of the most dangerous fireworks, such as thunder flashes, may come within this particular subsection. Therefore, they may not be covered. I think it is important that they should be included and marked if possible.
Another point I have in mind has been referred to by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood)

namely, the length of the new Clause. He said it was nearly as long as the Bill itself, and I should like to hear something from the Undersecretary of State about subsection (7), which to me seems very long. One wonders if it is based on any other Section in a previous Act of Parliament For instance, it says:
Where a defendant seeks to avail himself of the provisions of the last foregoing subsection (a) the prosecution, as well as the person whom the defendant charges with the offence, shall have the right to cross-examine him, if he gives evidence, and any witness called by him in support of his pleas, and to call rebutting evidence;".
Is it really necessary to have all those words included? They seem to add to the length of the Clause and to be merely verbiage which is not strictly necessary. May I, in conclusion, again say that we gladly welcome the Bill?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am not certain whether I ought to declare my interest in this Bill. I have no interest in fireworks except a certain amount of suspicion. When I see a new Clause of this length, couched in these words, which has been described as almost as long as the Bill itself, I think it is only right that we should ask for assurances from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle). We know, for example, that he is Private Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, and on an occasion of this kind, when most of the Members from Scotland are attending to their constituencies, we find him sponsoring an innocent looking Bill dealing with fireworks. It is couched in very vague words, and I too, should like to have a definition of jumping crackers and "Throw-downs."
12.30 p.m.
In the first page of the Bill occur these words:
Where a government inspector for the purposes of the principal Act finds in a magazine…
Ought we not to have a definition of "magazine"? If fireworks can be found in a magazine we might even find that our lockers have been searched because one of us might have in his locker a magazine which could be used as a receptacle for fireworks. I am sure that my hon. Friend has come here with honest intentions, but so did Guy Fawkes. Indeed, I have heard it said that he was


the only man who has ever come here with honest intentions and that there has not been one since. I should like my hon. Friend to give us these definitions so that we shall know that there are no sinister political implications in this lengthy new Clause, which he has introduced in such very suspicious circumstances.

Mr. Lionel Heald: I would like the Under-Secretary to give us an elucidation of subsections (6) and (7) of the proposed new Clause, and to tell us whether the procedure contained in them has already been applied. So far as my knowledge goes, this kind of third-party-criminal procedure is something new. It might not be so, but the provision in subsection (7) suggests that there is something unusual about it. There are special provisions for witnesses to be cross-examined, and that indicates that something unusual is being done.
While I would not like for one moment to cause any complication, and least of all any obstruction, of this matter, I feel that a little explanation is required when an unusual procedure of this kind is introduced. These subsections appear to contemplate that a person against whom a charge is made can thereupon give notice that there is someone else against whom he says proceedings ought to be taken. He is then entitled to have that person brought before the court, and, if the case is proved, to have that other person substituted for himself. So far as my experience goes that procedure is quite new, and I would like to be satisfied that it has been considered very carefully and that all the implications are being borne in mind.

Mr. Moyle: In reply to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), I would say that the Clause provides for those fireworks to be excluded which are impracticable from the standpoint of marking. The containers will be subject to marking, and that is provided for in the Clause. As to the nature of these fireworks I can assure him and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that jumping crackers are only small squibs. I understand that "Throw-downs" are made of very small circular stones—not the Stone of Destiny or the Stone of Scone—rather resembling

ordinary marbles. They are coated with a little powder, and when they are thrown down this causes a slight explosion when they reach the pavement. I give these two definitions to assure my hon. Friends of my honest intentions. The reference to "aluminium or magnesium torches" is to what are popularly known as "sparklers." I hope that these assurances will satisfy my hon. Friends.
With regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe), it is hardly fair to impose upon the Home Office the task of having to decide which firm is within the law and which firm is not. Nevertheless, I hardly think that "Pain's Fireworks" is good enough, but I think that if they were to mark them "Pain's, London, England," they might get away with the marking.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): Perhaps I might reply to the two points which were put to me about subsections (6) and (7). I would assure the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald), who raised the matter, that there are precedents for this procedure in the legislation on food and drugs, factories and so on. The unusual wording is included because the occupier—the Bill carries very heavy penalties—may be 300 or 400 miles away, and may be a corporation. It may be highly desirable that some one on the spot who is really responsible should be penalised in this matter. The procedure has been found to work well for some time in the case of food and drugs.

Earl Winterton: Like my hon. and learned Friend, I have some qualms about this particular proposal which seems to me setting a great trap to catch a mouse. I do not think a great deal of harm comes to the public which these provisions seek to prevent, and to give the power which is proposed in one of these subsections seems to be very dangerous. I hope that it will receive due attention in another place. I shall say nothing further now.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The provisions of the Bill enable us to deal with a very serious danger to young children and even to adults. I regret having to say that there are one or two firms who have been engaged in this trade and who


have shown a complete disregard of the public safety. We have been quite powerless to take effective action against them. If the Bill had not been brought forward, I should have had, I think, during the coming Session to ask the House to take notice of this matter in a Government Bill.

Earl Winterton: That was not my point, which was an objection to the procedure of the provisions of subsections (6) and (7) of the proposed new Clause. I sought an assurance that the matter had been considered because the provisions seemed to be very severe for the type of offence.

Mr. Ede: I will see that the noble Lord's remarks and reservations are examined, and that if it should appear that anything here is unduly severe and unjustifiable in the public interest, appropriate action is suggested in another place. I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension as to the importance of this Measure. It seems a particularly mean thing, after firms have been warned about it, that fireworks of a dangerous character continue to be placed in the way of children who, quite innocently, buy them and encounter severe physical disabilities as a result.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PENALTY FOR DEFACEMENT OF MARKS.)

If any person in the course of a trade or business sells, or offers or exposes for sale, any fireworks and a name or address put on them in pursuance of section (Marking of fireworks) of this Act has been removed, obliterated or altered, he shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds:
Provided that it shall be a defence—

(a) to prove that the removal, obliteration or alteration was such as the defendant could not have reasonably been expected to observe; or
(b) in the case of fireworks which at the time of the alleged offence were in a container, to prove that the container had not been opened since it came into the possession of the defendant; or
(c) to prove that the removal, obliteration or alteration was not carried out for the purpose of concealing the identity of the maker, or, as the case may be, of the importer, of the fireworks.—[Mr. Moyle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The proposed new Clause provides penalties for defacement of the markings which were provided for in the Clause to which we have just agreed. It applies not only to the manufacturer but to others concerned in the sale of fireworks. Appropriate penalties are provided. It gives reputable firms an opportunity for some defence in respect of fireworks which sometimes appear on the market not through the regular channels of commerce but through questionable mediums. The Clause provides reasonable grounds for defence by the manufacturer or the salesman. While every care may be taken by the manufacturer or the salesman and the fireworks made with all the care in the world, they may be concerned in a transaction in which others may be dangerous. It is not the wish of the promoters of the Bill that reputable tradesmen or manufacturers with a long record of good service behind them should be unduly penalised as result of some unwitting circumstance unknown to them.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: I beg to second the Motion.
Though the penalties in the Clause are substantial, there are on the other hand certain safeguards because the tradesman has the defence that he is not responsible for accidental damage through the fireworks having become wet or abraded in transport and he is also safeguarded if it is clear that any obliteration of markings has not been with any criminal intent or for the purpose of covering one of the maleficent firms who have been making bogus fireworks. Even though the penalties are severe, I feel that little exception can be taken to the Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(SEIZURE OF FIREWORKS.)

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "in the hands," and to insert "when in the possession."
During the Committee stage it was seen that the words
…which in his opinion would be dangerous in the hands of the public…
were open to an interpretation which was ridiculous. The words seemed to carry with them the implication that before fireworks could be considered dangerous they had to be in the hands of the individual,


and that was not the intention of the Clause. After consideration and after consultation with the Home Office we have brought forward this Amendment and consequential Amendments throughout the Bill which make the position much clearer.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to second the Amendment.
The new words improve the Bill and make the position quite clear. I should like to put one point to the hon. Member. I suppose it is clear throughout the Bill that the fireworks mentioned are intended only for sale to the general public. It may be almost too late now, but it might have been as well to insert such words as, "intended for sale to the general public," because firework manufacturers make many things for the Admiralty and other Government Departments which are never handled by the public.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

Clause 2.—(DETERMINATION OR AMENDMENT OF LICENCES FOR FACTORY WHERE DANGEROUS FIREWORKS MADE.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 32, leave out "in the hands," and insert "when in the possession."

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the Secretary of State shall at least fourteen days before serving the notice give to the occupier a statement of the grounds on which his opinion is based and shall afford to the occupier a reasonable opportunity of making representations as to the accuracy of the statement.
The Amendment arises as a result of representations made by the hon. Members for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) and Rushcliffe (Mr. Redmayne), and is a very valuable addition to the Clause. The Bill made no provision for any appeal from a decision taken by the Home Office inspector, and on reconsideration of the Bill it was felt that some provision should be made to give the manufacturer the right of appeal on the grounds of complaint which are made known to him. The Amendment will enable the manufacturer to be given by the Home Secretary the grounds upon which it is intended to

proceed against him following an adverse report by the inspector, so that within a period of 14 days he can consider the statement of the case against him and make such representations as he thinks fit to the Home Secretary.
Therefore there will be ample opportunity as a result of this Amendment for him to state his case, and for it to be considered, before the Home Secretary decides whether or not to determine his licence. After that process of consideration of an appeal, will begin the seven days' notice provided for in the Bill, as against a mere seven days' notice without any provision of appeal at all. This Amendment certainly improves the Bill and tempers the justice of the right of inspection with mercy.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: I beg to second the Amendment.
It has been felt by many that the procedure which could be adopted against a manufacturer or dealer under suspicion was somewhat harsh and liable to be immoderate, and that the rights of the citizen were inadequately protected if he were perfectly innocent. This Amendment may be commended to the House as removing any doubts about the rights of the citizen, who, under it, will have time and opportunity to defend himself from the charges brought against him.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, after "period," to insert "of seven days."

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I wonder if the hon. Member could reply to the point I raised on a similar Amendment a few minutes ago with regard to the words "in the hands of the public"?

Mr. Moyle: Clause 2 (1) is subject to the Amendment which we have adopted to Clause 1, and which runs right through the Bill. Therefore instead of the words, "in the hands of the public" it will now be "in the possession of the public" as originally determined on the first Amendment to the basic Clause of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

Clause 4.—(DETERMINATION OR AMENDMENT OF LICENCES FOR FACTORY WHERE THERE IS NEGLIGENT MANUFACTURE.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 43, at end, insert:
Provided that the Secretary of State shall, at least fourteen days before serving the notice, give to the occupier a satement of the grounds on which his opinion is based and shall afford to the occupier a reasonable opportunity of making representations as to the accuracy of the statement."—[Mr. Moyle.]

Clause 8.—(SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 13, at beginning, insert: "Subject as otherwise expressly provided."—[Mr. Moyle.]

Orders of the Day — New Schedule.—(KINDS OF FIREWORKS WHICH NEED NOT BE MARKED.)

Aluminium or magnesium torches ("Sparklers")

Jumping crackers.

"Throw-downs."

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
If this Bill becomes law it will be within the power of the Home Secretary to determine by Statutory Instrument other fireworks which may be excluded from the ambit of the Bill, and such a Statutory Instrument will be subject to the usual Parliamentary procedure and control.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: I beg to second the Motion.
There has been a certain amount of doubt, even alarm and dispondency expressed by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on the subject of this Schedule. I understand that that is now being laid at rest by him in another part of this Palace. Probably the doubts are not altogether as intensely felt as they were expressed, and I hope there are no misapprehensions about the meaning of the term "jumping crackers." It is not a state we all get into at the end of a long debate, at any rate we back benchers, if not necessarily the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.
I feel that the assumed ignorance on the subject of "throw-downs" is surely a clue to an extraordinary faultless youth. Surely even that not very bellicose hon. Member must have come across these little lead devices wherein a pistol cap is

put. It is then thrown down behind unsuspecting citizens and children in order to afford amusement for the onlookers. Surely those are familiar to most people who have lead a normal mischievous childhood. I am deeply impressed by the innocence of the hon. Member. I feel sure that, with the exception of that hon. Member, the meaning of this Schedule is clear enough to hon. Members present; I feel that it is devoid of offence, it says what it means and means what it says, and is sufficient for the purpose it wishes to serve.

Question put, and agreed to.

Schedule added to the Bill.

TITLE.

Amendment made: In line 4, after "made", insert:
to make provision for the marking of fireworks and containers in which fireworks are kept."—[Mr. Moyle.]

12.59 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I never thought, when I drew this horse which had the virtue of being well placed, that it would ever be so well placed as it is today. Having been so fortunate in the Parliamentary Ballot, I felt that the only possible chance I had of securing a Private Member's Bill and having it placed on the Statute Book would be to adopt a subject which was as popular and non-controversial as I could find. I am glad to say that my judgment of this Bill as being essentially non-party has been upheld.
Before this Measure leaves the House for another place, I should like to say how grateful I am not only to my own colleagues, but also to the hon. and gallant Member for Gosport and Fareham (Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett) and the hon. Members for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) and Rushcliffe (Mr. Red-mayne) for their co-operation. They have been of great help. I should also like to mention specifically, if the Home Secretary will permit me, the great assistance I have received from his able lieutenant and also from the representatives of the Home Office.
This Bill is a much better Measure than it was when it secured its Second Reading. I am satisfied that the provisions added to it by way of Amend-


ments and new Clauses are calculated to achieve the end we had in view in promoting the Bill. It is tempered with a better measure of justice for the manufacturer and the salesman than was the case when it was first drafted. One of my pleasant experiences has been the good will expressed towards the Bill by the industry. It is another proof, of what was often proved to me during my long experience in industry and in the whole field of collective bargaining, that much of the time of Parliament is used to try to liquidate the blacklegs on both sides.
We seek not only to protect the child and the employee, but also the reputable manufacturer and the good industrialist, from the blacklegs in the industry. Though difficulties may arise in the operation of the Bill, I hope that if and when it reaches the Statute Book our collective desire of defending the child against dangerous fireworks will be realised. Most of us are only too sadly aware of the bitter experiences of last November and of November, 1949. Only a few days ago we learned of what happened, with fatal results, to employees in a certain factory.
While we cannot hope that all such dangers will be eliminated as a result of this Measure, I am satisfied that it will make a real contribution towards the promotion of safety and the protection of children against danger. By sheer luck I have had to accept the paternity of this child. If we assume that the Bill will receive its Third Reading, I should like to tell the Home Secretary that, by the very circumstances of the course the Bill will take, I shall have to ask him to relieve me of my responsibility for its paternity, and to become its foster-father. I hope that I shall be able to find someone in another place who can obtain the same good will and co-operation there as I have so generously received here to get this Bill through as soon as possible. Should this Measure become law, I shall say, in the sentiments of Jackie Milburn the Newcastle centre-forward, "It was not my Bill. I did not score the two goals. They were scored by the team."

1.5 p.m.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: I deeply appreciate the feeling expressed in the remarks of the hon. Member for

Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle). All of us in the House, and in the country, too, are aware of the great debt of gratitude we owe him for his public spirit in taking up this vitally necessary piece of legislation, as the Home Secretary described it. I have spoken of my indignation at the maiming of unsuspecting children. I must also declare another interest besides a medical one, and that is that perhaps I have not yet outgrown my own tendency to enjoy playing with pyrotechnics.
Whenever I ignite a firework I have a feeling of apprehension lest it should do something unexpected. It is possibly because of faulty fireworks that I have acquired that feeling. But this Bill will safeguard children and those who are rather older than children, in age at least, from danger. It does not interfere with the right of the citizen to make his own mischievous brews and experiment with them.
Above all, it does not penalise the decent, reputable maker of fireworks whose produce we see exploding in such a splendid manner. I hope that we shall see fireworks exploding in large quantities for our amusement during this year of the Festival that has opened today. There is justice in this Bill for both sides. It is a matter of great satisfaction that the Bill has got to its present stage, and it looks as if it has a sporting chance of passing the winning post.

1.7 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): We have had a mixture of Bills this morning. We have passed from criminal law amendment to pet animals and then to fireworks. There was one moment in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) when I thought that we were discussing an amendment to the bastardy laws or laws for the care of children.
In discussing this important Bill it is right that we should get a sense of proportion about it first. We must not forget that it is aimed at a very small number of manufacturers who do not follow the usual rule of British manufacturers and exercise great care. The work of the average manufacturers, together with that of His Majesty's inspectors of explosives, results in the fact that we have extremely


good fireworks which provide a great deal of pleasure and joy at very little risk.
There is a gap in the law, and this Bill helps to fill that gap. It carries penalties—not the penalty of boiling oil, as one hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested—which are adequate in the circumstances. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen on breaking his five year's silence, imposed by the position he holds, and on sponsoring such an important Measure as this. If this Bill goes through another place and is put on the Statute Book I shall feel happier in letting children play with fireworks when November comes, and we celebrate the routing of the man referred to already, who, about 350 years ago, without leave of the House, attempted to make us play a highly spectacular part in a fireworks display.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading, read.

1.10 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: Mr. Speaker has ruled that this Bill, which received its First Reading in this House last November, may not be proceeded with because the Government have now introduced a Bill which we shall consider in Committee next Wednesday and which covers its major points. I ask the indulgence of the House to make a brief, explanation upon the way in which these two Bills, in fact, bear relation to each other.
Clause 1 of my Bill sought to enable a women who is in receipt of a widowed mother's allowance or a widow's pension to earn as much as she is able and willing to earn without her earnings affecting her allowance or pension in any way. This it would have done by repealing Section 17 (3) of the National Insurance Act, 1946, which now provides that with the exception of 30s. her pension is reduced by 1s. for every shilling earned in excess.
Under Clause 2 (3) of the Government's Bill, a widow in receipt of a widow's allowance or pension is to be permitted as from the appointed day to

earn up to 40s. in any one week without suffering any reduction in her benefit for the following week. Moreover, it is provided that in no case is the benefit of a widowed mother to be reduced by more than 30s. a week. I am satisfied that these provisions are reasonable. I believe it to be against the public interest that widows with children should be encouraged by any fiscal arrangement which we make in this House to work whole time. On the other hand, my object was to enable them to supplement their pensions by part-time earnings without undue penalisation. I think the Government's proposal achieves a just compromise.
The second thing my Bill attempted to do was to raise the earnings limit of all retirement pensioners of either six from 20s. to 40s. a week, and, secondly, to enable a retirement pensioner to average out his casual earnings over a period of four weeks. I am very glad that the right hon. Lady the Minister has been able to arrive at the same conclusion, and I am grateful to her for so doing, because, under Clause 4 (5) of the National Insurance Bill, all men who retire at 65 and all women who retire at 60 are to be able during the first five years of retirement to earn up to 40s. in any one week without their pensions being affected.
We know that after reaching the ages of 70 and 65, respectively, men and women can earn as much as they like. There are some who claim that everyone should be able to do that when they first retire. That, I think, is to misconceive the nature of the pension which is a pension due on retirement at the earliest pensionable age, and not an old age pension payable by virtue of having reached that pensionable age. I think that today 40s. is a reasonable sum in this regard, and I am grateful to the Government because, of course, they are in a position to give practical effect to this Measure, and I am not.
There remains only the proposal that the casual earnings should be averaged. It is not only in the interests of the individual, but also in the interests of the public that people who retire at the earlier age, either for health reasons or because of the nature of their employment, or, perhaps, because they cannot procure permanent employment, should


be able to work part time without undue penalisation. The right hon. Lady the Minister has stated on many occasions that this would prevent undue administrative difficulties. Therefore, I have had the benefit of the advice and help of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers), and he and other hon. Friends of mine have put down an Amendment to the National Insurance Bill which we shall be discussing in Committee next Wednesday. I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to come along on that day to explain what are these undue and insuperable difficulties. For these reasons, and in accordance with Mr. Speaker's Ruling, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Bill.

Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — PACKAGING AND HANDLING OF FOOD BELL

Order for Second Reading read.

1.16 p.m.

Colonel Cyril Banks: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In view of the necessity for better food hygiene in this country, I hope the Government will permit the deletion of four words from the original Bill in order that the regulations may apply to food sold not only in the open air, but on enclosed premises. The regulations as they stand at present, impose a code of cleanliness and hygiene for foods sold in the open air, but that code does not apply to foods sold on enclosed premises. The purpose of this Bill is to make the regulations apply equally to food sold in enclosed premises. If that is done, then, I think, we shall have a better standard of hygiene.

Mr. Crouch: I beg to second the Motion.
I know that during the last 20 years great improvements have been made in the way that food is handled in this country. However, I feel it is unfortunately still necessary to try further to improve the way in which food is sold to the general public. We are all aware that disease can be passed on

through the unhygienic handling of food. For these reasons, I wish to support my hon. and gallant Friend, and hope that the Government will give their blessing to this Bill and allow it to proceed through all its stages.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I think we all know of the interest which the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks) has in this subject of food hygiene and his knowledge of it. He knows, as I am sure many hon. Members know, that within the last few years the Ministry of Food have had this matter very much in mind, and that their model bylaws issued in 1949 have been adopted by, I believe, the majority of local authorities, or, at any rate, a very large number of them.
As to the merits of this Bill itself, I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food is considering a number of matters connected with food hygiene, and that he may come to the conclusion that some amendment of the Food and Drugs Acts is necessary. With the assurance, which I gladly give, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food will bear in mind what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said on this matter, I would ask him to consider the undesirability of having too many bites at the cherry, whether it is a cherry indoors or in the open air. I hope that with that assurance the hon. and gallant Gentleman will decide not to press this Bill.

Colonel Banks: In view of the fact that the Minister of Food has promised to bear in mind the necessity for a better standard of food hygiene in the country, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes past One o'Clock.